Instead of experiencing sadness, you should be happy. A whole bunch of people
made a commitment to marriage in the last week and a half. And individual rights
and freedoms have been strengthened. This is a great time for Utah.

Comments about ‘Being for traditional marriage does not mean being against
anyone’

----

What are people supposed to believe
when the main argument against gay marriage is that allowing gay marriage would
hurt traditional marriages? The two aren't correlated, and people
intelligent enough to see this are consequently led to believe there is some
other hidden agenda.

Gay marriage is only for people who are wired
differently. The institution of traditional marriage doesn't suit them. The
reality of nature is that some people are homosexual. I wish it weren't so,
but this is the reality.

All this said, children ought to have a
mother and a father. Gay marriage if it ever becomes allowed permanently ought
not mean that children who otherwise could have had a mother and a father become
stuck with two mothers or two fathers instead.

Civil unions with all
the rights of marriage other than the right to adopt children who otherwise
would have a chance to have a mother and a father would seem to be in order.

This reminds me of when women didn't want to be called "Miss" or
some feminists didn't want to be called "Mrs" so suddenly every
woman, regardless of age or marital status, was "Ms." Just because a
woman is married and prefers to be called "Mrs" is no reason for those
who aren't to feel uncomfortable being called "Miss." They think
being called Miss will openly attract men in whom they have zero interest.
News: If a man finds you attractive and he is the sort to pursue possibilities,
it won't matter if either you or he are married or what you are called; he
will behave that way towards you.

For those with same-sex attraction,
that want to live together in a committed relationship, go for it. I hope you
are happy and feel fulfilled. You deserve every legal protection and advantage
the law allows anyone else. But you are not "husband and husband" or
"wife and wife" and certainly not "husband and wife." Perhaps
you could use another term for sharing your life together other than
"married." That is more of your hang-up than your previous legal
status.

The "Biblical tradition" of marriage includes multiple wives and
concubines.

We don't force single parents to marry, we
don't prohibit parents the right to divorce, we don't set income or
educational restrictions in the ability to have and raise children - nor do we
have laws controlling against many of the other things we know are more riskful
situations for raising children. Why worry about this one that _might_ be a
problem while ignoring those we have firm evidence _are_ problems?

How can someone who thinks marriage should not exist at all be considered an
"advocate" of marriage and why only focus on homosexuals who think
marriage should not exist when there are many heterosexuals who feel the same
way?

Public accommodation laws are very clear - if you serve the
public, you must serve the entirety of the public. Business owners should not
be allowed to use religion as an excuse to discriminate. Otherwise - as history
has shown us, not as some fabricated slippery slope scar tactic - it progresses
from not providing a cake to not providing food at all, from not providing a bed
to not providing housing at all, from not providing elective medical care to
providing no medical care. There are already those in Utah who freely admit
they should not have to work with or hire gay people nor allow them to live in
certain neighborhoods or apartment complexes.

There is something
special about marriage - which is why so many gay couples want it.

And nothing in this editorial addresses why it should be denied them when it
is not denied to others based on the exact same reasoning presented.

'We all have
83-year-old Edith Windsor to thank for in pushing the issue of same-sex marriage
equality on to the national front. Edie and her partner Thea were together for
40 years. How many marriages do you know that have lasted that long? But when
Thea died in 2009, Edie was hit with a $363,000 federal estate tax bill because
as a same-sex couple they were not eligible for the unlimited marital deduction.

"Contrary to popular portrayals, supporters of traditional marriage are not
the angry, hate-filled bigots they have been stereotyped to be."

And yet the Deseret News prominently publishes the story of the gathering in
Highland ("Former Arizona sheriff blasts ruling that allows gay marriage in
Utah") that makes it clear just how angry, hated-filled and bigoted a
sizable element of the anti-marriage equality movement really is.

What is also perfectly clear is that opposition to respecting the equal rights
of homosexual citizens derives exclusively from the hostility of religious
fundamentalists towards homosexuals.

We do not live in a theocracy.
Our nation is a constitutionally constrained republic in which the rights of a
minority are not subject to majority vote. And because of that fact, Utah's
Amendment 3 has rightly been found, through extensive legal review and due
process, to be invalid.

The rights, marriages and children of
heterosexual couples are not in the smallest way harmed by marriage equality,
while denying same-sex couples the right to marriage does real harm. Those are
the established facts.

Your personal religious convictions do not
trump the 14th Amendment, no matter how much sugar-coating you apply to your
arguments.

Once again, financial issues are conveniently ignored. Of course supporters of
"traditional" marriage favor paying less tax because same-sex couples
must pay more -- half a million dollars more, in the Windsor case. Of course
they are in favor of collecting more Social Security benefits because LGBT
survivors, including children, collect nothing. Of course they favor increased
veterans benefits for some, because spouses killed in action serving their
country are denied anything for their life partners -- at least if they did not
formalize the relationship in a state that recognizes unfairness.

Those states, however, are where 38% of Americans reside. Same-sex marriage
is not just a financial issue, but those who are unwilling to address financial
inequality should no longer be permitted to ignore it. Opposition to same-sex
marriage may not mean being against anyone, but it does mean taking money out of
their pockets.

I am for traditional marriage too, but I am also for gay marriage. Why
can't I have my family just as you have yours? I am not trying to stop
anyone from having a traditional marriage. So why are you trying to stop me from
marrying the one I love? Gay marriage doesn't subtract anything from
traditional marriage, it only adds more happy stable families.

I'm sorry...but you are wrong. You can "believe what you want to
believe", certainly. But you can also do so without trampling on the rights
of others. Not believing in marriage equality doesn't make a person a
bigot, however, actively opposing it does. Bigotry is believing that you have a
right to something while denying it to others. No one is saying that you have
to embrace marriage equality. You as an American have the right to personally
accept it or not, but what you don't have a right to do is to deny your
fellow Americans their right to marry the person that they love.

Get over it. Gay marriage is happening in our country. You have lost, the other
side has won. Our civilization is not going to crumble now because of this. Find
a way to move past this issue and go make the world a better place.

Absolutely NOTHING has happening to "traditional marriage" as it applies
to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual). Nothing is being redefined.
Straight couples will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and
families together as they always have. None of that is going to change when Gay
couples tie the knot also.

Did Michael and Jenet Erickson think that
the marriage equality movement was some sinister plot to make homosexuality
compulsory for everyone? Gosh, I hope not. It doesn't work that way. The
human population has always been and always will be predominantly heterosexual.
Procreation is not at risk here.

And for Heaven's sake, who
DOESN'T support "traditional marriage?" If any of my single
Straight friends finds a compatible person of the opposite sex to get
"traditionally married" to, NO ONE will be happier than me. The fact
that I support equal treatment under the law for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay
couples doesn't mean I'm against "traditional marriage" for
Straight couples.

When it comes to tradition and stability,
isn't it better to encourage Gay couples toward monogamy and commitment?